9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfirmed along with interest and penalty vide Order-in-Original dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Assistant Commissioner Jaipur by denying the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as amended. 2. The brief facts as per show cause notice is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Mehandi Cone/Paste and Mehandi Powder. The appellant was clearing the said goods without payment of central excise duty by availing the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.12. 3. A show cause notice dated 23.06.2014 was issued to the appellant for the period June 2013 to March 2014 proposing to deny the exemption and for recovery of central excise duty of Rs. 30,21,725/- on the ground that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under notification is very clear with reference to henna paste. The only condition is that the said paste should not have been mixed with any other ingredients. The scope of the said entry was clarified by the Board vide letter dated 10.07.2014. The Board clarified as below:- "Doubts have been raised regarding the scope of the exemption from excise duty available for heena powder or paste under Sl.No.134 of notification 12/2012-Central Excise dated17th March, 2012 in the context of the phrase "not mixed with any other ingredient". It is clarified that the exemption is available to heena powder mixed with a liquid, so far that the liquid is a medium to change the form of heena powder into paste but excludes products like heena dye and suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as adding any chemical in the Henna Powder, while converting it into paste. No sample of the product in question i.e. Henna Powder and Henna Paste, were drawn by the department of the product in question during the relevant period. Further, the SCN also does not rely upon any CRCL test Report. The Ld AR appearing for the revenue accepted this factual position. However, he tries to justify the adjudication order and the impugned order wherein reliance was placed on the CRCL Report dated 29.05.2014, which did not pertain to the period covered in the SCN, but was for the subsequent period, as is clear from the date of the CRCL Report. We are not convinced by the said argument of the Ld AR in view of settled law, as laid down by the Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The subsequent test report results received on 11-9-1998 and 9-9-1999 of the Deputy Chief Chemist and Chief Chemist which were not referred in the Show Cause Notices could not be relied upon....." 12. In view of the above referred position of law, we hold that the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority was not correct in placing reliance on the CRCL Report dated 29.05.2014 which was neither forming part of the SCN nor pertained to the lot which were manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the period covered in the SCN i.e. June 2013 to March 2014. 13. Accordingly, the Order-in-Appeal dated 04.04.2018 passed by the CCE(A) is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed, with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
